This blog consists of comments from my real blog, http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/, which I don't want to publish there.
Plus some other stuff convenient to place here.
And its becoming a convenient place for me to dump my comments on other blogs so I can find them again.

There are two major fruitcakes, and they hang out on Steven Goddard's blog, one [deleted. Please learn some self-control - W] who claims the sun is made of iron and World War Three will result if he doesn't get a Nobel Prize, and the other pattern matches fractal coastlines to visible star constellations, claiming that World War Three will result is we don't all immediately reject Darwin, since Ancient Gods made the land and sea. I regularly bash one Steven Goddard for this mad house sponsorship, just as I helped him figure out the fallacy of his own hockey stick of temperature data adjustments that was due to late temperature station reporting. But you? You are psychologically projecting onto your most effective critics, your own faults. I have little to do with it. I'm just the mirror on the wall.

The reason he’d been forced to resign was an intense campaign of vilification and intimidation. Former colleagues even refused to work with him and his papers in the publication process were suddenly being rejected for what was obviously non-scientific reasons. Bear in mind, he’d already had over two hundred papers published, so obviously knew what would be viable in terms of publication. Most tellingly, one of the rejected papers highlighted the glaring disparity between computer climate predictions and the real world data. What’s most disturbing about the treatment of Prof. Bengtsson, is the people acting like common or garden thugs...

But that's an awful lot to hang on very little information; a distinct lack of skepticism methinks. Its not even clear quite what you're referring to (cite your sources). I'll assume you're talking about LB's own statements. You can't possibly read "acting like common or garden thugs" from that. But nor can we take his statements entirely at face value, since he is clearly writing in his own self interest. We don't actually know what "pressure" he's come under; he won't release any of these emails. We do know that he began by saying that colleagues (plural) had withdrawn from co-authorship, and that he later changes that to the singular. So he's not quite reliable in these matters.

Also, you have your timeline wrong: the rejection of the paper came first, the fuss with the GWPF came after, so the GWPF can't have caused the rejection.

And "so obviously knew what would be viable in terms of publication" - this appears to be a credentialism argument: his paper should have been published, because he'd had others published, That's invalid, obviously.

[We then had a bizarre one-sided exchange, in which he censored all my comments, but then, weirdly, answered them all. I've copied them into the comments here, so you can see. Even more weirdly, P then wrote <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6Pxu2yDjS">this follow up</a>. Which was apparently sufficiently exciting to get copied onto <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6PxtyFEor">WUWT</a>]

[ W ] is giving the opinion of (apparently to you) "one bloke" only a problem for you when his opinion differs to yours ?

Nic Lewis is a climate scientist after all. His views on climate sensitivity are the same as many other scientists.And that is, based on observations climate sensitivity is far lower than the IPCC's models project.

No, it means nothing of the sort. WC has already told you so. At that point you should have at least Googled ‘IPCC expert reviewer’ and tried to see if you were on solid ground. You’re not.

<<<

Kevin,if you'd clicked on the link I provided, the one below,
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexVI_FINAL.pdf

you will read

-
" Annex VI: Expert Reviewers
of the IPCC WGI Fifth
Assessment Report"
are you saying Kevin that The IPCC tells lies to us, because the IPCC clearly tells me at their link that Nic & all the others listed on their site are 'Experts"

Andrew Glikson
“I wonder whether such a show, if concerned with denial of the holocaust of world war II, would have been conceived?” - Andrew Glikson, Australian National University (2012)
Bernie Sanders
“It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s – there were people – who said ‘don’t worry! Hitler’s not real! It’ll disappear!” - Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont (2010)
Charles Larson
“The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist.” - Charles Larson, American University (2013)
Craig Rosebraugh
“Fox [News] is far and away the extreme example. They’ll have a known holocaust denier debating a holocaust survivor.” - Craig Rosebraugh, Environmental Activist (2013)
David Fiderer
“At its core, global warming denial is like Holocaust denial, an assault on common decency.” - David Fiderer, The Huffington Post (2009)
David Roberts
“It’s about the climate-change “denial industry”, …we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.“- David Roberts, Grist Magazine (2006)
Donald Prothero
“There are many more traits that the climate deniers share with the creationists and Holocaust deniers and others who distort the truth.” - Donald Prothero, Occidental College (2012)
Ellen Goodman
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007)
Greg Craven
“When the press does a story on the Holocaust, do they give equal time to the revisionists?” - Greg Craven, Central High School, Independence, Oregon (2010)
Guy Keleny
“I think these people are anti-science flat-earthers. …They are every bit as dangerous as Holocaust deniers.” - Guy Keleny, The Independent (2013)
Jim Hoggan
“These are not debunkers, testing outrageous claims with scientific rigor. They are deniers – like Holocaust deniers.” - Jim Hoggan, DeSmogBlog (2005)
Joel Connelly
“Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.” - Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer (2007)
Jon Niccum
“An Inconvenient Truth is so convincing that it makes opposers of the argument as credible as Holocaust deniers.” - Jon Niccum, Lawrence Journal-World (2006)
Nathan Rees
“The threat of climate change is catastrophic. In fact, the current wave of climate change scepticism smacks of 1930s-style appeasement.” - Nathan Rees, Australian Politician (2009)
Paul McCartney
“Some people don’t believe in climate warning – like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.” - Paul McCartney, Musician (2010)
Paul Payack
“There are now proposals that ‘global warming deniers’ be treated the same as ‘Holocaust deniers: professional ostracism, belittlement, ridicule and, even, jail.” - Paul Payack, Global Language Monitor (2006)
Pete Postlethwaite
“There are bound to be deniers. Whenever you set up a thesis there’s bound to be somebody who comes the opposite way …like Holocaust deniers.” - Pete Postlethwaite, Actor (2009)
Peter Jacques
“This article begins by first naming this counter-movement “climate denial” and working through the various apparent options by specifically looking at the scholarship on Holocaust denial for insight.” - Peter Jacques, University of Central Florida (2012)
Richard Glover
“Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.” - Richard Glover, The Sydney Morning Herald (2011)
Richard Kyte
“Does the Media Research Center think equal air time should be given to Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers as well?” - Richard Kyte, Viterbo University (2013)
Richard Schiffman
“We don’t give Holocaust deniers equal time to vent their noxious views, so why offer it to the climate change deniers?” - Richard Schiffman, The Huffington Post (2012)
Robert Manne
“Denialism, a concept that was first widely used, as far as I know, for those who claimed that the Holocaust was a fraud, is the concept I believe we should use.” - Robert Manne, La Trobe University (2009)
Scott Pelley
“If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” - Scott Pelley, CBS (2006)

[Update: I note here that "Tom Fuller" denies making this comment. I don't believe him; which is to say, I think he did make the comment. Before I explain why I think that, in possibly tedious detail, I'll note that I am at least partly happy that TF does not wish to be associated with such a comment, and denies authoring it. Now for the tedious detail:

Preamble: the identity: this being the internet, I have no real way of knowing that the person who runs the blog The Lukewarmer's Way is actually called Tom Fuller. I've no reason to believe not, but it makes for confusing terminology. I also can't verify that the person who emailed me is the same as the person who runs the blog. But the co-incidence would otherwise be so extreme that I'm not going to doubt that latter. Its probably also the same TF as at https://plus.google.com/114317544880622632763/posts. Note, conversely, that you can be sure that I am the human called William Michael Connolley, because enough biographical detail exists to link together this blog, my other blog scienceblogs.com/stoat, my old blog mustelid.blogspot.com, and my wiki pages.

The denial: at TLW, ATTP linked to a comment placed on my blog (and copied to stoat-spam by me) signed by Author : Tom Fuller. And then, to the one I've copied into this post. The two comments have different IPs, and they geolocate to different places, both in the far east. The first named, made in 2015, geolocates to Taipei. The second named, made in 2014, geolocates to Shanghai. Note: revealing IP addresses is, I think, unacceptable; revealing broad locations such as Shanghai or Taipei is acceptable; and TF has self-located to these broad regions anyway.

The first IP matches a number of other comments on my blog ostensibly from "Tom Fuller", such as one, two, three, four. Note that those comments self-locate, correctly, to Taipei. All those are from 2015.

The second IP also matches a number of other comments, such as five (note: one the same post as the disputed one), six, seven, eight. All those are from 2014.

Either all of these comments were made by TF, or none, or someone in close geographical proximity to him made them, or someone with truely l337 haxor skilz. I'm going to discard the last (because its a bit like "suppose we're inside a virtual reality"; once you assume that, you can assume anything). All the other comments are plausibly in the style of TF, and I think unlikely all to be faked. What would be the point? The close-geo-prox is conceivable but implausible, especially as the location follows what I know of TFs moves from place to place.

Which brings me back to TFs assertion that he didn't make the offending comment. When I told him "really? It came from this IP" he replied that it couldn't be him, since the IP was in S and he was in T. However in 2013 he announced he was moving to S (permanently, he said, but permanence changes) so I find that unpersuasive.]

Friday, 16 May 2014

A new comment on the post "Ha ha: Lennart Bengtsson leaves advisory board of GWPF" is waiting for your approval
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/14/ha-ha-lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board-of-gwpf/

A new comment on the post "Ha ha: Lennart Bengtsson leaves advisory board of GWPF" is waiting for your approval
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/14/ha-ha-lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board-of-gwpf/